new Magico speakers the Q5

Roypan,

Please define "real" and "value." Do you refer to intrinsic, inherent or instrumental value? Do you refer to social reality or to some objective reality as Searle distinguishes? Is raw material cost the defining characteristic of any product? What about design costs? What about R&D? What about inefficient R&D and production costs? What about lack of statistical quality control that leads to manufacturing inefficiencies and waste that lead to higher prices for the end user? Input side is a part but intermediary steps very much affect outcomes as does the cost of living and working in the San Francisco Bay Area.

I do believe you tread into philosophical depths beyond your erudition when you castigate others who confound valuation with preference. Perhaps some time understanding the philosophical foundations of perception or the vast and growing neuroscientific research into consciousness, emotion, cognition and valuation/valencing will enable you realize that value and the stuff between ones ears are quite intertwined.

In what way has Magico risen to the top? Of what? Is there a hierarchy of loudspeakers that towers above us into the sky, that is there for anyone in the world to apprehend?

Hi Roypan,

To what extent have I disparaged your ownership of the Magico or any other product? My primary point is that we should limit our conclusions to those we derive from sound premises using consistent logic.

There are many things we may assume but not test: the fierceness of competition in the marketplace for highend audio speakers; the sociology of knowledge and information dissemination in discursive networks etc.

As for wasteful, you infer that I imply that Magico are wasteful. I did not make that claim. I merely provide an optic by which we might examine our frameworks of reasoning.

And even if Magico were inefficient, which is not the same as wasteful (one imagines a semantic difference in intent), at the price they sell for, if I like them, I would buy them, as I did the V3.

Indeed, many of the factors you allude to in the design and construction of Magico are appealing to me as a layperson who does not purport to know how they work together. However for aesthetic and intuited reasons, the use of materials like aluminum or void-free Baltic Birch is something I can grasp. Indeed, knowledge of similar design and construction components in my Boulder, MBL and Goldmund gear returns the same satisfaction.

On the other hand, although I might have been unfair to single your post out, in truth, as you mention, there are many posts here and in all the Magico and Wilson Audio threads that suffer worse cases of opinion masquerading as fact.

To this extent, I would proffer that an argument can be made for Magico quite well using precisely the aspects of manufacture you refer to without resorting to ad hominem attacks. In fact, I know that you have done exactly this in many other threads across this vapid cyberspace. So ironically, I am with you.

Soldier on.

Kirbyfel,

Which Boulder amps did you audition with the MBL 101Es? I find the 101Es require a certain amount of bass control to integrate the woofer with the rest of the speaker. Also, did you audition the 101E positioned out into the room? I find the sonic presentation of the radial speaker to be very natural and immersive as I would if there were musicians in the room.